Talk Origins Problems

For something to be accepted as false, first their has to be an open mind, and the room for free thinking. Evolutionists, atheist, etc... Always claim that it is the creation side that has the closed mind. Which is not true. Unlike creation, evolution is taught to most everyone through the public school system. So most creationists have been already exposed to it, and made a decision not to go along. Evolutionists, on the other hand, did not have creation taught to them in public schools, and therefore had their minds already made for them upon leaving school. A mind made up is hard to change. Even when after the other side has been shown. Why? Who likes to admit to be wrong? Even on one issue.

Also, I have yet to see one teacher that teaches evolution that is not always singling a student out for their belief in creation, or a God.

Basically, talk origins is and always will be one sided on the issue of creation because it is run by those who learned and knew about evolution way before creation. They will never give an inch, but will always take a mile. Actually, the extent talk orgins goes to, to prove creation and God wrong, actually gives more credit to them. Why? Why fight something you don't consider science with science, unless you consider it a threat to science? If I did not believe creation, and thought evolution was the truth, I would not waste my time on things that most evolutionist say are fables and myths. For how do you fight a fable or myth unless it is more to it, than what it is claimed to be, by those who disagree with it?

But the battle continues, and so does the creditibility that what is being fought, is more than what is claimed.

Myth= Something that is believed, supernatural, and can't be proven to the satisfaction of all.

Fable= A falsehood or a lie.

So why fight something you cannot really prove one way or the other? Something that is not already believed. But yet act as if you have all the answers, but call these answer theories, which are not absolute truth themselves.

Evolutionists, atheist, etc... Always claim that it is the creation side that has the closed mind. Which is not true. Unlike creation, evolution is taught to most everyone through the public school system. So most creationists have been already exposed to it, and made a decision not to go along. Evolutionists, on the other hand, did not have creation taught to them in public schools, and therefore had their minds already made for them upon leaving school.

Making generalizations like this is a risky business. Unchecked, it tends to lead to excesses on both sides of the debate which waste time, suck bandwidth, and generally act as impediments to the meaningful exchange of ideas. Unless you care to support these claims with statistical evidence, perhaps it would be more consistent with this forum's stated goal of "honest, civil dialogue" if we could just stipulate that one aspect of human nature is that we all tend to regard as closed-minded those who refuse to accept our ideas.

Making generalizations like this is a risky business. Unchecked, it tends to lead to excesses on both sides of the debate which waste time, suck bandwidth, and generally act as impediments to the meaningful exchange of ideas. Unless you care to support these claims with statistical evidence, perhaps it would be more consistent with this forum's stated goal of "honest, civil dialogue" if we could just stipulate that one aspect of human nature is that we all tend to regard as closed-minded those who refuse to accept our ideas.

Actually, I don't think that way. From looking at your world view, I accept your belief as a atheist. I accept that is what you choose because it is your choice. So if you don't accecpt my ideas, it does not matter.

But this is more of a reference to the attitude of some who come here and take up the same attitude that talk origins projects. One that more or less says: I have all the answers, and I'm always right.

NOTE: I am granting special debating rules on this subject. As long as it stays civil, we will discuss the issue at hand. It can go into what ever direction as long talk origins stays the main focus.

For something to be accepted as false, first their has to be an open mind, and the room for free thinking. Evolutionists, atheist, etc... Always claim that it is the creation side that has the closed mind.

I don't know if its about closed mindedness. Evolutionists are happy to accept that some people believe the world was created 6 days ago over a period of 6,000 years or the other way around or whatever. Its when people use bad science to discredit good science that people get upset. The same way that historians (amongst others) get upset when holocaust deniers come on the scene.

Which is not true. Unlike creation, evolution is taught to most everyone through the public school system. So most creationists have been already exposed to it, and made a decision not to go along.

That's fine - but what about those who have been convinced to accept Christ on the basis of bad science, lies and falsehoods? Indeed, this raises an interesting point: When it comes to salvation do the ends justify the means? I don't think so, but that's only my opinion.

Evolutionists, on the other hand, did not have creation taught to them in public schools, and therefore had their minds already made for them upon leaving school.

Actually that's wrong in my case on many accounts. First, I was taught the creation story before I went to school. One of the first stories I was taught was the birth of Jesus. I then went to a Gospel school in the Caribbean and then I moved to England, which has no state/religion differentiation. As such I was exposed to both sides of the story.

Interestingly, the Creationist debate is not as pronounced in England as it is in the US, yet the Creation story is taught in schools here (or at least was)...

A mind made up is hard to change. Even when after the other side has been shown. Why? Who likes to admit to be wrong? Even on one issue.

Totally agreed. Of course, this works both ways, right?

Why fight something you don't consider science with science, unless you consider it a threat to science?

Other people consider it a science, if nobody responded with a "no it isn't", with supporting evidence, then others would consider creationism a science. At the end of the day I (and others) consider Creationism is a political movement. As such it provokes a strong response in some people. Most scientists don't care about the whole thing, some scientists would be surprised there is a debate in the first place.

So why fight something you cannot really prove one way or the other? Something that is not already believed. But yet act as if you have all the answers, but call these answer theories, which are not absolute truth themselves.

Its not God, or Christianity that is being fought. Its misleading science. Its hooky mathematics designed to convert people. Evolutionists don't have all the answers, and they are open about that (wheras Creationists often claim to have more absolute answers). It is when Creationists use dodgy maths, and equivocation to prove a scientists work as being wrong....the scientists often take that as criticism and respond in kind.

Nobody is asking anyone to 'believe' evolution...we're just asking you to not misrepresent the scientific model in order to try to disprove it.

[edit:- It kind of reminds me of The moon Landing Hoax fiasco. Because NASA never officially rebutted the claims, they grew stronger and stronger. Eventually NASA, started to formally respond, does this mean they felt threatened by the claims? Or maybe they got tired of people saying wrong things about them, using bad science to prove them wrong? Maybe they got tired of being accused of orchestrating a conspiracy?

And tying this back to talk.origins. Many members there are indeed Christian, but they do not accept a young earth because it is contrary to evidence. When someone starts making claims that the evidence is wrong that's fine. When the reasoning they use to demonstrate this is flawed, that is when those flaws are pointed out. Naturally not everyone agrees with what is flawed and what is not flawed and so debate flares. Talk.origins is an outlet for frustrated scientists and laypersons who are tired of seeing the same flawed (in their opinion) arguments pop up all the time...so the language used there is frequently informal and (regretably) oftentimes derogatory. Indeed, I find their posts on Thermodynamics, and some other subjects to be incomplete and unsatisfactory.

I think that the Talk Origins persons and some of their ilk, suffer from an extreme form of methodological naturalism (of supposed "required" naturalism in origins), that renders there claim to be "objective" on the subject of origins doubtful.

I think that you will find that virtually all creationist scientists would at least admit hypothetically that if the common creator hypothesis of life on earth is not true that therefore (given the degree of similarities between complex living things) common descent evolution would be. Therefore they at least admit that evidence against one view would be evidence for the other one).

I have not seen any creationists claiming that if the common creator hypothesis were somehow shown to not be true that this would not support evolution because of the possibility of something like: "A random quantum fluctuation, in accord with the principle that anything that is not strictly forbidden will happen, coalesced into all known life and matter as we know it 20 minutes ago."

There really are only three basic options for the origin of anything - bilogical and non-biological. (provided you believe that it has an origin -something that virtually everyone admits). These options are:

1. naturalistic origin

2. creation

3. some combination of the previous two

Geological example: The finding of a sandstone pyramid (like the great pyramid) on Mars would cause most scientists go examine all three options above. However someone committed to extreme "methodological naturalism" in geology would apriori limit themselves to only consider option #1. naturaistic origins, and would probably miss out on the correct explanation (because of their methology).

This is the methodological bias that Talk Origins has in biology, and it is just as powerful (if not more so) than any other bias in origins.

Keep in mind that the creation of anything (whether pyramids or biological structures), is not "naturalistic." Therfore limiting oneself to the consideration of only "naturalsitic" alternatives is the same as excluding creation from a real consideration (and will many times admitidely lead to to a possibly false conclusion -see my above pyramid example)

Claim CA301.1:If the correct explanation for a phenomenon happens to be supernatural, the naturalistic method of science will miss it. "With creationist explanations disqualified at the outset, it follows that the evidence will always support the naturalistic alternative."

In their responses to this valid point one of the Talk Origins responses even (inadvertinity) admits it is true !:

We cannot observe the supernatural, so the only way we could reach the supernatural explanation would be to eliminate all natural explanations. But we can never know that we have eliminated all possibilities. Even if a supernatural explanation is correct, we can never reach it.

Thus, the Talk Origins group will "never reach" (due to methodology) a creation explanation (even if correct !, and even if all known naturalistic explanations are falsified).

They later go on to say:

If we do miss a supernatural explanation, so what? Supernatural explanations cannot be generalized, so the explanation does not matter anywhere else. The usefulness of science comes from the ability to apply findings to different areas. Any supernatural explanation would be useless.

I have not seen any creationists claiming that if the common creator hypothesis were somehow shown to not be true that this would not support evolution because of the possibility of something like: "A random quantum fluctuation, in accord with the principle that anything that is not strictly forbidden will happen, coalesced into all known life and matter as we know it 20 minutes ago."

If creation was shown to be false, surely Creationists would still be attacking evolution? After all, the reason they are attacking evolution is because it is bad science right? Or are you saying that the critique of evolution is there only because it contradicts your faith?

There really are only three basic options for the origin of anything - bilogical and non-biological. (provided you believe that it has an origin -something that virtually everyone admits). These options are:

1. naturalistic origin

2. creation

3. some combination of the previous two

I'd like to change your list to something more appropriate

naturalistic origin

supernaturalistic origin

some combination of the previous two

Geological example: The finding of a sandstone pyramid (like the great pyramid) on Mars would cause most scientists go examine all three options above. However someone committed to extreme "methodological naturalism" in geology would apriori limit themselves to only consider option #1. naturaistic origins, and would probably miss out on the correct explanation (because of their methology).

Those using methodological naturalism of any kind would immediately choose option #1. They would first observe how it is unlikely/impossible this formation occurred the geological chance. Instead they would conclude that somebody built them. A perfectly naturalistic conclusion. They wouldn't say "Wow, this didn't happen through erosion, it must have been a supernatural creature who transcends space and time"

This is the methodological bias that Talk Origins has in biology, and it is just as powerful (if not more so) than any other bias in origins. Keep in mind that the creation of anything (whether pyramids or biological structures), is not "naturalistic." Therfore limiting oneself to the consideration of only "naturalsitic" alternatives is the same as excluding creation from a real consideration (and will many times admitidely lead to to a possibly false conclusion -see my above pyramid example)

Actually, everything we have that is created is done according to the laws of nature. I can think of no created object that is created in violation of these laws. Therefore all created things, that we know are created, are done so naturalistically.

Thus, the Talk Origins group will "never reach" (due to methodology) a creation explanation (even if correct !, and even if all known naturalistic explanations are falsified).

That's right. You cannot use naturalism to explain the supernatural, by definition. We still have a naturalistic explanation of origins of species...if there was not one, I'd be more inclined to accept a supernatural explanation. The only problem of course is which one?

However, it is possible to come a conclusion that we are created using naturalism, even if we cannot define who that creator is/was.

And quite right too, so what if we cannot detect or explain things supernaturally. That is the job of theology, not of science. Science tells us what it can using naturalism, theology does it what it can using supernaturalism. Is this a problem?

But this is more of a reference to the attitude of some who come here and take up the same attitude that talk origins projects. One that more or less says: I have all the answers, and I'm always right.

Again, I think this emerges naturally -- almost inevitably -- from certain aspects of human (actually, primate) nature. An individual with an established track record of having all the answers and always being right comes to enjoy a certain status, status which, ultimately, tends to be a major factor influencing the distribution of resources (especially mates). In short, I believe that we all are driven by instinct to convince others that we have all the answers.

Significantly, it is often not necessary that we actually have the answers in order to pull this off (the operative word being: convince). But since human perception is fine-tuned for sensitivity to insincerity in other humans, the chances for success are greatly increased for the individual who first convinces himself.

The unfortunate conclusion is that humans are not predisposed by nature to an honest quest for truth; that goal is best served by an ability to hold in check the selectively reinforced tendency to over-value one's own ideas. It doesn't seem realistic to me to expect any human to achieve complete success in this regard through solitary effort. Having said that, I agree with your characterization of the 'attitude' at TalkOrigins, as far as it goes -- but I'd say you left an important one out. In addition to: "I have all the answers" and "I'm always right", I would add: "***************". I don't think it's realistic to expect posters in this forum to do much better than the average poster to TalkOrigins as far as the first two are concerned, but the commitment to upholding a higher standard with regard to the third seems like a worthwhile idea.

Edited by Admin3: Sorry, but we don't allow words like that. We strive to keep it as clean as possible here. Watch the wording.

Those using methodological naturalism of any kind would immediately choose option #1. They would first observe how it is unlikely/impossible this formation occurred the geological chance. Instead they would conclude that somebody built them. A perfectly naturalistic conclusion. They wouldn't say "Wow, this didn't happen through erosion, it must have been a supernatural creature who transcends space and time"

So are you saying that creation can be "a perfectly naturalistic conclusion" ?

If so, then wouldn't creation by a common designer be a "naturalistic" alternative to evolution by common descent to explain the similarities in life?

Even if the creator may be defined as being supernatural, does this automatically disqualify the hypothesis of creation of natural things from consideration as science?

So are you saying that creation can be "a perfectly naturalitic conclusion" ?

If so, then wouldn't creation by a common designer be a "naturalistic" alternative to evolution by common descent to explain the similarities in life?

Yes - but there is a problem. Either the common designer is supernatural and so we can only come to the conclusion that there was one, and can learn no more. Or the common designer was natural, and so we now have the same problem...where did our creator come from?

Thus, we have three options:abiogenesis, theogenesis, and xenogenesis. The latter is an incomplete option though.

However, don't get excited just yet. There is more evidence that we came about by evolution than there is of a common designer. After all, a common designer would explain our similarities, but it wouldn't explain why things are similar in some cases and different in others, and more objections to ID abound. If you want to discuss them, start a thread up.

Claim CB121:J. B. S. Haldane calculated that new genes become fixed only after 300 generations due to the cost of natural selection (Haldane 1957). Since humans and apes differ in 4.8 Ãƒâ€” 107 genes, there has not been enough time for difference to accumulate. Only 1,667 gene substitutions could have occurred if their divergence was ten million years ago. Source:ReMine, Walter J., 1993. The Biotic Message, St. Paul Science, Inc. Response:Haldane's "cost of natural selection" stemmed from an invalid simplifying assumption in his calculations. He divided by a fitness constant in a way that invalidated his assumption of constant population size, and his cost of selection is an artifact of the changed population size. He also assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, but because of S@xual recombination, the two can be selected simultaneously and both reach fixation sooner. With corrected calculations, the cost disappears (Wallace 1991; Williams n.d.).

Haldane's paper was published in 1957, and Haldane himself said, "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision" (Haldane 1957, 523). It is irresponsible not to consider the revision that has occurred in the forty years since his paper was published.

ReMine (1993), who promotes the claim, makes several invalid assumptions: The vast majority of differences would probably be due to genetic drift, not selection. Many genes would have been linked with genes that are selected and thus would have hitchhiked with them to fixation. Many mutations, such as those due to unequal crossing over, affect more than one codon. Human and ape genes both would be diverging from the common ancestor, doubling the difference. ReMine's computer simulation supposedly showing the negative influence of Haldane's dilemma assumed a population size of only six (Musgrave 1999).

This Talk Origins arctcile contains many errors. see the "Biotic Message" thread.

Claim CB120:The overall effect of mutations is to lower the viability of populations, due to the "genetic load," or genetic burden, that they add to the gene pool. Source:Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 56-57. Response:As new harmful mutations enter the population, selection removes existing harmful traits. The genetic load of a stable population is an equilibrium between the two.

Bacteria mutate much faster than plants and animals do, yet their populations are not becoming less viable.

I'm doubtful about this Talk Origins response. Could it be that the Talk Origins author is making this based on textbook assumption?

ReMine sates:"All evolutionary genetics textbooks discuss harmful mutation in terms of mutational load. Mutational load is a concept for estimating how harmful mutation rates affect differential survival. This concept assumes that mutation and selection are in equilibrium, that is, the rate that new harmful mutations occur in the population equals the rate they are eliminated by selection. In other words, the concept makes the hidden assumption that error catastrophe does not occur. evolutionary textbooks do not draw attention to this detail." ReMine The Biotic message p. 251

If creation was shown to be false, surely Creationists would still be attacking evolution? After all, the reason they are attacking evolution is because it is bad science right? Or are you saying that the critique of evolution is there only because it contradicts your faith?

Well, It goes much further than that. The theory of evolution actually mocks God in several ways.

1) It denies creation of man totally.

2) If combined with creation, none of what God has done is no longer accepted, and is rewritten. I believe combinning is the most dangerous for the faith of someone who wants to believe because you have to compromise one for the other.And faith should not include the option of compromise because then it becomes the individual who decides if God is telling the truth. And when you put yourself in that position to judge God, in affect you become God in your mind. And I believe that's where alot of this attitude comes from.

3) Combining also makes people ask the question: If God created man in His own image. What was God when he did this if man had to evolve? And I have seen people use this to call God an ape.

4) A Christian, turning to evolution, has to give up God. For how can you have total faith when evolution requires you to deny and come up with excuses as to why you don't? As a christian, what part of God's word would be deniable that God would accept on judgement day?

5) Losing respect for God. Once a person has lost respect for God, and is bold enough to call God a liar. There is nothing that can be said by either God's follower's, or God's word that will ever be accepted. Though they will say: show me proof... When there is really no proof that would be good enough in their mind because the word liar, blocks them from ever seeing it.

Well, It goes much further than that. The theory of evolution actually mocks God in several ways.

1) It denies creation of man totally.

No it doesn't. It just denies that man was created 'as is', rather it describes man's creation as being a long (to our temporal eyes) process.

2) If combined with creation, none of what God has done is no longer accepted, and is rewritten. I believe combinning is the most dangerous for the faith of someone who wants to believe because you have to compromise one for the other.And faith should not include the option of compromise because then it becomes the individual who decides if God is telling the truth. And when you put yourself in that position to judge God, in affect you become God in your mind. And I believe that's where alot of this attitude comes from.

Maybe, but it doesn't requre being rewritten, and its no compromise really to regard the Genesis story as a metaphorical tale rather than a treatise on cosmology.

3) Combining also makes people ask the question: If God created man in His own image. What was God when he did this if man had to evolve? And I have seen people use this to call God an ape.

Perhaps God uses a process to build man in his image? To God this process is very quick, we just see it as a long process because of our short lives.

4) A Christian, turning to evolution, has to give up God. For how can you have total faith when evolution requires you to deny and come up with excuses as to why you don't? As a christian, what part of God's word would be deniable that God would accept on judgement day?

Then why is it that the billion strong Catholic church, a highly conservative organisation, seems OK with evolution? Do you think they have given up God? I'm fairly sure they haven't. You can have total faith that Christ is your saviour and you can love the Lord, and still view Genesis as a non-factual account.

5) Losing respect for God. Once a person has lost respect for God, and is bold enough to call God a liar. There is nothing that can be said by either God's follower's, or God's word that will ever be accepted. Though they will say: show me proof... When there is really no proof that would be good enough in their mind because the word liar, blocks them from ever seeing it.

Losing respect for God does lead to secularism. Accepting evolution does not mean losing respect for God.

And all of this is promoted at talk origins in one form or another.

I'd be very surprised if talk origins promotes losing faith in any way except losing the faith that God created the world 6000 years ago.

I'd be very surprised if talk origins promotes losing faith in any way except losing the faith that God created the world 6000 years ago.

The only "God" that Talk Origins wants you to believe in is one that is indistinguishable from no God at all (at least as far as acting in history in biology or geology). All others they want you to loose faith in.

Many are affronted by what is perceived as the twisting of science to meet preconceived objectives, (which is about as close to heresy as you can get in science) hence some authors speak in stronger terms. As talkorigins is more relaxed in what language can be used, some us it.

Well, It goes much further than that. The theory of evolution actually mocks God in several ways.

I have no belief in God, so mocking him is not possible. One could mock the idea of God. Does evolution do that?

4) A Christian, turning to evolution, has to give up God. For how can you have total faith when evolution requires you to deny and come up with excuses as to why you don't? As a christian, what part of God's word would be deniable that God would accept on judgement day?

Huh? Why do you have to give up on God to accept the idea of evolution? Is there some reason God could not have invented evolution?

The only "God" that Talk Origins wants you to believe in is one that is indistinguishable from no God at all (at least as far as acting in history in biology or geology). All others they want you to loose faith in.

Talk Origins doesn't want you to believe in any God in particular. The kind of God you believe in is entirely your own belief. You can even believe in a God that created the Earth 6,000 ago in six days. That's perfectly fine. You can believe that, you can Believe that in the beginning there was just the sea, and God was born from an egg before giving birth to the god of the sky and the god of the land.

All that is fine with me, and with the talk origins crowd. The only point when it becomes a problem is when you say "My model is confirmed using science, and using science your model can be proven false (or can never be proven false because of...) [insert string of dubious scientific claims]". When you say that, people get upset. People get especially upset when you start using dodgy science to further political ends. Basically, if you use bad maths, statistics or science to prove anything (be it social, polictical or religious points) then it will get criticized. This does not mean that the social, political or religious point is wrong - just that people find it abhorant to abuse science, logic or maths.

Talk Origins is about what the scientific model uncovers, not denying God. All it denies is that God created man 'as is' and the world in 6 literal days 6,000 years ago. If you require that God did it in a certain way for your belief to be valid then so be it, personally I think that is building your faith on uncertain ground but that's just my opinion. I understand that if your faith requires the earth to have been created in a certain way then the fact that science contradicts the model is deeply upsetting. If you accept it for one moment your faith will come crumbling down around you. Food for thought though, what would Jesus have advised? That you spend your days railing against science, finding small holes and blowing them out of proportion? That you use questionable means to achieve the end that more people come to believe the earth was created by God 6000 years ago?